PDA

View Full Version : Glitterdust



Overlard
2007-11-23, 10:39 PM
This came up in the last session, when a new player challenged how we interpreted this spell.

We've played it that the glitterdust appears and disappears instantly. The only lasting effects are that anyone caught in the area is unable to go unseen for 1 round/level, and may be blinded for 1 round/level.

The new player had always done it differently, and said the way we played it seemed overpowered for a 2nd level spell. He said that the glitterdust remains for 1 round per level, and that the effects only apply to those in the area each round. So if your invisibility is rumbled by glitterdust, you can move out of the area next round and disappear again.

Now the first interpretation makes more sense to me when reading the description, but looking at it again, it does seem too powerful for a 2nd level spell. A 10ft radius spread can blind a lot of enemies, and looking back over our group's history, it has ended a lot of combats much quicker than one would expect.

How do people play it, and do they think it's out of line with other 2nd level spells?

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-23, 10:42 PM
Glitterdust has always been brokenly good, and another level 2 spell that's broken is Alter Self. Neither spell is in line with normal level 2 spells, no.

TheOOB
2007-11-23, 10:43 PM
All creatures caught in the spread are blinded and revealed for the duration of the spell, the spell doesn't leave behind a lingering cloud of dust, if it did it would explicitly mention so, probably referring to obscuring mist like most cloud spells do (solid fog, cloud kill, ect).

Yes glitterdust is overpowered, hopefully you wizard can only ruin 1 or 2 encounters a day with it, at least until they find another spell thats even more broken.

Inyssius Tor
2007-11-23, 10:47 PM
All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.

Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Hide checks.

Well, since it cannot be removed, that suggests that it follows victims out of the area of effect--and that -40 penalty effectively counters invisibility.

Draz74
2007-11-23, 11:21 PM
I support this interpretation, as long as the people using it admit that it's technically a house rule.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-23, 11:31 PM
This conversation makes me sad. I took Glitterdust as one of two effective spells that I have on my 4th level sorcerer, and have yet to contribute to a fight with it, much less break one. The one fight I thought it would be useful for, the only guy who failed the save had the Blind-fight feat. :smallsigh:

adanedhel9
2007-11-24, 10:45 AM
Okay, so I actually looked this up:

Glitterdust's area is a spread:


A spread spell spreads out like a burst [...]

A burst presumably only affects those in the area at the start of the effect, as an emanation is explicitly defined otherwise:


An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell.

Which means, by RAW, glitterdust only affects those in the area at the start of the spell.

goat
2007-11-24, 11:24 AM
Given complete darkness, a character who is invisible, can be seen through and thus displays twice as much glitterdust per unit area (he's covered on both sides after all), can STILL hide more easily than a character who's wearing all black and shows only half as much glitter.


What's your opinion on covering up to counter it?

If a character has a traveling cloak, and keeps it in his Handy Haversack, he can retrieve it as a move action. If he was invisible initially, his cloak should be invisible too, but not covered in glitter. (Anyone know how much time it takes to put on a cloak? I can only find tables for armour.) If he puts on his cloak, he SHOULD thus cover up most of the glitter and seriously reduce the hide penalty. So, he retrieves his cloak, dons his cloak, and takes a five foot step in a random direction.

How hard is it to now see him?

Emperor Demonking
2007-11-24, 11:33 AM
I always thought it was the first one, but the dust didn't disapear.

Idea Man
2007-11-24, 12:09 PM
If you want to be absolutely technical, a cloak in an extradimensional space is not on you at the time of the casting of invisibility, so is not itself invisible (I suppose if you cast a transdimensional invisibility...). You would still hide better covering up the glitterdust, but not inviso better.

martyboy74
2007-11-24, 02:03 PM
If a character has a traveling cloak, and keeps it in his Handy Haversack, he can retrieve it as a move action. If he was invisible initially, his cloak should be invisible too, but not covered in glitter. (Anyone know how much time it takes to put on a cloak? I can only find tables for armour.) If he puts on his cloak, he SHOULD thus cover up most of the glitter and seriously reduce the hide penalty. So, he retrieves his cloak, dons his cloak, and takes a five foot step in a random direction.

How hard is it to now see him?

Not hard at all. They see the glitterdust through the invisible cloak.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-11-24, 02:04 PM
Okay, so I actually looked this up:

Glitterdust's area is a spread:
Add to it that the area is specifically attatched to those creatures and objects within the spread, and it becomes even more clear that it only affects those in the area at the time of the casting.

goat
2007-11-24, 03:42 PM
Not hard at all. They see the glitterdust through the invisible cloak.

Good point, completely missed that. What about someone trying to hide normally? Do you think it should work then?

tsuyoshikentsu
2007-11-24, 03:57 PM
Here's the way I've always looked at glitterdust.

The spell magically conjures some, essentially, makeup glitter. You toss it out and it emanates, catching everything in its area. It's still affected by gravity, so most of it ends up on the ground; however, anything that it DOES touch it sticks on like nothing else until the spell expires. So anyone invisible is now a hole of negative space with a glitter frosting, and some people got the stuff in their eyes.